Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-29-2022, 08:36 PM)Dill Wrote: The question addressed in #1 of my previous post was

 Does being a slave owner automatically make you a horrible person?  

There are three possible standpoints from which to answer that question:

1. From a viewpoint based upon deontological ethics and the liberal concept of universal individual human rights, yes, being a slave owner does automatically make one a horrible person. 

2. To contest that [i.e. horribleness], while retaining the concept of universal human rights, one would have to adopt some form of situational ethics, perhaps combined with a CRT approach which roots racist behavior in institutions rather than random individuals who just choose to behave badly.  

3. Embracing some form of illiberal ethics, one might conclude slave-owning isn't bad, so people practicing it aren't "horrible persons." I don't think there are other options. Which of these would you choose?  

#2 primarily involves situational ethics. The CRT reference is added as a possible help to sorting that out, not as essential to #2.

So I am wondering which option you might choose.

I have, by the way, answered this sort of question before, perhaps several times, the gist of which was, before I answer any such question, I imagine myself in the subject's time, with his/her resources.  I'm a sincere admirer of Washington. Would I think differently about slavery were I raised in his household? Being a materialist, I don't have grounds for supposing I would be "special," gifted with ideals outside history, and respond with outrage, like a 21st century leftist-without-quotation-marks. 

So I don't "blame" Washington the way I would censure, say, Trump. But then I do strive to understand how W's. race and gender views were built into a system of government whose principles are otherwise remarkable.  Recognizing that history is about fixing the present, continuing an Enlightenment legacy, not blaming dead guys who cannot hear me anyway. Blaming is not analysis, but many people cannot tell the difference. 

I'll be happy to answer, honestly, just as soon as you tell me under which of those three categories you'd place Muhammed.  I did ask first.

[*pally*]

(06-29-2022, 09:23 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Basically the woke crowd wants to throw every history book away, because no one who lived before about 1970 was not flawed in their thinking, so nothing ever accomplished is worth celebrating or remembering. 

As opposed to the fantasy history conservatives want us to believe?
Expanding history to include the lives of others who lived it is a good thing…even if you don’t like the stories they have to tell. You can’t tell Thomas Jefferson’s story fully, for example, without telling the story of Sally Hemings. It was part of who he is. If it points out he was a flawed man, well he was. You cannot learn from the past if you refuse to acknowledge it. You can celebrate greatness without canonizing people. Heroes often have clay feet. I’d rather celebrate people who do well despite their flaws than laud them as perfect.
There is also the reality that this country’s Constitution was written by white men for white men. So yes it was on one hand forward thinking at the same time also being very much if it’s time. No one gets harmed by pointing that out.
Why are conservatives so afraid our real history? How can knowing the good, bad, and yes even the ugly of our history be negative. It is what it is. A great country and people aren’t afraid to face the past and learn things. It is how we can achieve that goal of a “more perfect union”

BTW, woke is also not a negative. It means understanding and being aware of injustice, empathy towards others, respect for everyone. It is far better to be woke in 2022 than an ostrich living in the past.

[Sled21]

(06-30-2022, 05:03 AM)pally Wrote: As opposed to the fantasy history conservatives want us to believe?
 Expanding history to include the lives of others who lived it is a good thing…even if you don’t like the stories they have to tell. You can’t tell Thomas Jefferson’s story fully, for example, without telling the story of Sally Hemings. It was part of who he is.  If it points out he was a flawed man, well he was. You cannot learn from the past if you refuse to acknowledge it.  You can celebrate greatness without canonizing people. Heroes often have clay feet.  I’d rather celebrate people who do well despite their flaws than laud them as perfect.
There is also the reality that this country’s Constitution was written by white men for white men.  So yes it was on one hand forward thinking at the same time also being very much if it’s time. No one gets harmed by pointing that out.  
Why are conservatives so afraid our real history?  How can knowing the good, bad, and yes even the ugly of our history be negative.  It is what it is.  A great country and people aren’t afraid to face the past and learn things.  It is how we can achieve that goal of a “more perfect union”

BTW, woke is also not a negative.  It means understanding and being aware of injustice, empathy towards others, respect for everyone.  It is far better to be woke in 2022 than an ostrich living in the past.

I think anyone with any semblance of reason knows most of the people in history who did big things had flaws. They were human, just like everyone else. "You cannot learn from the past if you refuse to acknowledge it" is a phrase that fits my point exactly. Columbus sailed across the ocean and "discovered" the new world (and yes, I know the Vikings had already been here) but we are no longer allowed to acknowledge that fact because of what he did to the natives. Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet were some of the finest field Generals ever produced in this country, but we can no longer acknowledge that because of slavery. Yet we can put aside Lincolns views on slaves and pretend like he wasn't a racist because of his Emancipation Proclamation. Washington, Jefferson, and all the rest from Columbus to Roosevelt are being wiped from history by the woke mob, because they don't fit today's version of what a person should be.

And BTW, "Woke" is a negative, and finally people are starting to see that. You may think it is the definition you posted, but it's a monster out of control.

[GMDino]

(06-30-2022, 08:15 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I think anyone with any semblance of reason knows most of the people in history who did big things had flaws. They were human, just like everyone else. "You cannot learn from the past if you refuse to acknowledge it" is a phrase that fits my point exactly. Columbus sailed across the ocean and "discovered" the new world (and yes, I know the Vikings had already been here) but we are no longer allowed to acknowledge that fact because of what he did to the natives. Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet were some of the finest field Generals ever produced in this country, but we can no longer acknowledge that because of slavery. Yet we can put aside Lincolns views on slaves and pretend like he wasn't a racist because of his Emancipation Proclamation. Washington, Jefferson, and all the rest from Columbus to Roosevelt are being wiped from history by the woke mob, because they don't fit today's version of what a person should be.

And BTW, "Woke" is a negative, and finally people are starting to see that. You may think it is the definition you posted, but it's a monster out of control.

There is the bolded and then there is the rest when you seem to think we can't "acknowledge" people?

You can acknowledge them without building statues to them, for example.

Heck maybe we should teach all about it.  We could call it history through a critical lens.  Or a critical look at history or something?

I'm sure the gop would love that!

[GMDino]

Weird.  Who could have thought this would happen? 

Scoop: Several national antiabortion groups and their allies in Republican-led state legislatures are advancing plans to stop people from crossing state lines for abortions. Model legislation is in the works. https://t.co/sKpMCBydB7

— Caroline Kitchener (@CAKitchener) June 29, 2022

 


All seriousness aside, they'll make it a felony and then take away their voting rights if convicted.


US! USA! USA!  

[*michaelsean*]

(06-30-2022, 09:16 AM)GMDino Wrote: Weird.  Who could have thought this would happen? 

Scoop: Several national antiabortion groups and their allies in Republican-led state legislatures are advancing plans to stop people from crossing state lines for abortions. Model legislation is in the works. https://t.co/sKpMCBydB7

— Caroline Kitchener (@CAKitchener) June 29, 2022

 


All seriousness aside, they'll make it a felony and then take away their voting rights if convicted.


US! USA! USA!  

I can't get past the paywall, but I'd be interested to see what kind of law they think they could make up to prevent this.  I can't think of any way to make that a real law.

[GMDino]

(06-30-2022, 09:24 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I can't get past the paywall, but I'd be interested to see what kind of law they think they could make up to prevent this.  I can't think of any way to make that a real law.

A law that says if women go to another state and break the law of the state you left you will still be prosecuted.

No success yet but they are trying. And I'd like to think the SC would shoot it all down if it got that far.  But that it is even being considered tells us where this is headed.

Just like Texas would defend it's 50 year old sodomy laws.

They are chomping at the bit to roll back as many rights as possible for "others".

[BigPapaKain]

(06-30-2022, 09:16 AM)GMDino Wrote: Weird.  Who could have thought this would happen? 

Scoop: Several national antiabortion groups and their allies in Republican-led state legislatures are advancing plans to stop people from crossing state lines for abortions. Model legislation is in the works. https://t.co/sKpMCBydB7

— Caroline Kitchener (@CAKitchener) June 29, 2022

 


All seriousness aside, they'll make it a felony and then take away their voting rights if convicted.


US! USA! USA!  

Hey traveling between states isn't directly laid out in the Constitution. And since it's not written in a way that a 3rd grader could understand, I fully assume the SC will be okay with these laws.

Being originalists and all.

Best case scenario - you can travel freely between the 13 original states.

I wonder how this will affect all those mistresses of GoP lawmakers.

[*Nately120*]

On The plus side, all these anti women laws have really got to be infuriating my ex gfs.

[GMDino]

(06-30-2022, 09:34 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Hey traveling between states isn't directly laid out in the Constitution. And since it's not written in a way that a 3rd grader could understand, I fully assume the SC will be okay with these laws.

Being originalists and all.

Best case scenario - you can travel freely between the 13 original states.

I wonder how this will affect all those mistresses of GoP lawmakers.

Just heard that some are trying to write laws that would allow anyone to sue anyone if they helped a woman go to another state to get an abortion.

But this is TOTALLY not about trying to force their beliefs on everyone else.  Totally not.  

[*pally*]

(06-30-2022, 08:15 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I think anyone with any semblance of reason knows most of the people in history who did big things had flaws. They were human, just like everyone else. "You cannot learn from the past if you refuse to acknowledge it" is a phrase that fits my point exactly. Columbus sailed across the ocean and "discovered" the new world (and yes, I know the Vikings had already been here) but we are no longer allowed to acknowledge that fact because of what he did to the natives. Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet were some of the finest field Generals ever produced in this country, but we can no longer acknowledge that because of slavery. Yet we can put aside Lincolns views on slaves and pretend like he wasn't a racist because of his Emancipation Proclamation. Washington, Jefferson, and all the rest from Columbus to Roosevelt are being wiped from history by the woke mob, because they don't fit today's version of what a person should be.

And BTW, "Woke" is a negative, and finally people are starting to see that. You may think it is the definition you posted, but it's a monster out of control.

A monster "out of control" only through the very narrow lens of the right-wing perspective. Tucker throws around that word like it's an insult and you all dutifully follow along like parrots. The rest of the world laughs at you every time you all use the term because it is only an insult in your insular world.  I care about my fellow man and his circumstances.  If that makes me woke, then I proudly claim the title.
 You both acknowledge that Columbus didn't discover America and claim that he did.  Why can't we just teach the bloody truth? If that means Columbus no longer gets credit, get over it. Others were here first.  Why do you approve of their history being erased?  Because it doesn't fit the fantasy narrative of yesteryear? We can acknowledge Confederate generals' military expertise without glorifying them. They committed treason against the United States. They fought to keep people in chains. No amount of whitewashing will ever change that reality.  Every single state in the Confederacy listed the right to own slaves as the reason for their succession, but all that has been taught in many places was "state's rights" ignoring the right they wanted was slaves.  No statues, no hero status for these people...they were neither.  If you are properly teaching Abraham Lincoln, you teach his evolving views.  Again you teach his reality not some fantasy. 
If you want to talk about erasing history, look no further than all these new laws that forbid the teaching of "divisive" issues.  Real American history is divisive. Very little of it is actually happy happy joy joy. Much of it is very ugly. You cannot teach American History without talking about division because that division has existed since Day 1 and has driven events since then. The Constitution was a compromise that failed to include anybody but white males. Women, Blacks. Hispanics,  and Native Americans all exist and have had to fight for every right they have. Why is their reality and history not considered part of our collective history?  Why don't conservatives want it taught? Conservatives refuse to acknowledge that. 
I ask again...why are conservatives so afraid of reality? 

[*pally*]

(06-30-2022, 09:46 AM)Nately120 Wrote: On The plus side, all these anti women laws have really got to be infuriating my ex gfs.

I know this was a joke...but it really should be infuriating everyone.  If one group loses rights everyone's are at risk

[*Nately120*]

(06-30-2022, 10:13 AM)pally Wrote: I know this was a joke...but it really should be infuriating everyone.  If one group loses rights everyone's are at risk

The joke will be on us fellas who have to get vasactomies  to keep from knocking up our wives.  Ah well I always knew the government was going to interfere with my nutsack in sone way. 

[GMDino]

The republicans love children.  So much so they think children should be able to have children of their own!

Disgusting.

In Mississippi, poor mothers only have access to postpartum Medicaid coverage for two months after giving birth.

This year, the GOP-led Mississippi Senate voted overwhelmingly to vote to extend that to 2 months.

Speaker Gunn killed the bill.https://t.co/osyLnslNZL

— Ashton Pittman (@ashtonpittman) June 29, 2022

 

[*michaelsean*]

(06-30-2022, 10:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: The republicans love children.  So much so they think children should be able to have children of their own!

Disgusting.

In Mississippi, poor mothers only have access to postpartum Medicaid coverage for two months after giving birth.

This year, the GOP-led Mississippi Senate voted overwhelmingly to vote to extend that to 2 months.

Speaker Gunn killed the bill.https://t.co/osyLnslNZL

— Ashton Pittman (@ashtonpittman) June 29, 2022

 

I don't think you phrased that quite right.  Or would you force the child to have an abortion?

[GMDino]

(06-30-2022, 10:21 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think you phrased that quite right.  Or would you force the child to have an abortion?

I'd give them a choice.  No matter MY personal belief.

[Dill]

(06-29-2022, 08:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll be happy to answer, honestly, just as soon as you tell me under which of those three categories you'd place Muhammed.  I did ask first.

(06-28-2022, 09:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Excellent post.  Don't expect a coherent answer though, he'll just dodge and obfuscate before taking his ball and going home again.

No more time for you, until you hold yourself to the standards you demand others meet.

[*Nately120*]

(06-30-2022, 10:21 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think you phrased that quite right.  Or would you force the child to have an abortion?

No abortion and it is up to the girls father if she should marry the guy who raped her. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2022, 10:31 AM)Dill Wrote: No more time for you, until you hold yourself to the standards you demand others meet.

I see.  So you get to ignore my question and demand an answer of me?  But if I ask you to please answer my question before I respond to yours I'm ducking the issue?  Double standard much?


Dill, we all know why you won't answer my question about Muhammed being a well documented slave owner, just be a man and say why.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-30-2022, 10:25 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'd give them a choice.  No matter MY personal belief.

Well you should read your statement then.